Isaac Crawford wrote:
> In my experience of buying and selling used equipment, most lenses
>aren't built very well today regardless of who made them. The FA* lenses
>are an exception, along with other camera manufacturers top end lenses.
>I've never seen a third party manufactured lens that can stand up over
>time like the FA* lenses. Even the metal bodied lenses are suspect. I'm
>not convinced that the Tokinas are put together any differently than say
>a Tamron, they just use metal barrels instead of plastic. I've seen the
>same problems with both Tamron and Tokina over time, loose barrels,
>focusing past or not focusing to infinity, wobbly mounts, stiff or loose
>aperture ring, and aperture blade problems (oily, not closing, sluggish,
>etc.).
> I've never met a Sigma that I could trust. From top to bottom they seem
>to me to have the worst build quality of the big three. Keep in mind
>though that they seem to be as well built as a cheap Pentax (or Nikon or
>Canon, etc.) like the current 28-80. So it isn't as though they can't
>give decent results, just don't expect them to last the rest of your
>life...
My new Sigma 300/2.8 is built like a tank and is all metal construction
(well, except for the glass!) I have to admit it seems better built than
my only FA* lens (the 24/2.0)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
